Some info on Courts... kangaroo court. 1. A self appointed tribunal or mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded, perverted or parodied. 2. A court or tribunal characterized by authorized or irregular procedures, esp. so as to render a fair proceeding impossible. 3. A sham legal proceeding. Black’s 7th page 359 Common Law Courts (CLC) vs. Judge’s Chambers (JC) (commonly known as municipal, district, state, provincial, appellate, supreme, federal, courts) Law CLC 1. one law – the Golden Rule – you are free to do anything you please as long as you do not infringe upon the life, liberty, property, or rights of a living soul. 2. is the truth JC 1. Equity Law – compels performance via contract. This can be only civil, not criminal, yet failure to perform as directed by a court can bring charges of contempt which is a criminal action. Admiralty/ Maritime Law – civil jurisdiction of compelled performance which has criminal penalties for breach of contract. Since International contract backs codes, etc. and ‘courts’ won’t admit to this jurisdiction, they call it Statutory Jurisdiction. There are 60 million statutes, codes, rules, regulations, ordinances. Since 1938, all decisions will be based upon commercial law with criminal penalties. (This is why you can go to jail for not wearing a seatbelt.) 2. is colourable – truth can not be seen or heard * Purpose CLC – to compensate injured party JC – to obtain a contract in order to collect revenue for the Crown, to pay the interest on the Bankruptcy. Recognizes CLC – Accuser and Accused 48 JC – only ‘debtors’ and ‘creditors’; ‘fictions’ and ‘sovereigns’ – Plaintiffs and Defendants Jurisdiction CLC – belongs to jury JC – Judge has none and so tricks us into granting it Judge’s role CLC – Judge is mediator JC – Judge approves motions and signs summary judgements – against living souls Summons CLC – accused is summonsed to court via a signed, sworn, witnessed complaint by an injured party JC – living soul is tricked into chambers as ‘defendant’ via a summons, thereby granting jurisdiction. The summons needs only to be signed by the ‘judge’ thereby making it a summary judgement. Pleading CLC – accused can plead “innocent” JC – no ‘innocent’ plea, only ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ or ‘no contest’ Procedure CLC – straight-forward and works for all involved JC – is backwards or mirror-image; works only for the ‘court’ Plaintiff CLC – accuser whom accused can face JC – corporation represented by a prosecuting attorney who confronts defendant Burden of proof CLC – accuser must prove accused’s guilt JC – defendant must prove innocence – yet, it is impossible to prove a negative Accused/Defendant CLC – presents himself or has a lawyer represent him; (‘defend’: ward off attack from; OED; the word itself accurately suggests we are going to court as one to be attacked) JC – Strawman, represented by an attorney Arguing and testifying CLC – will present the truth of the matter – the facts JC – will put us into ‘dishonour’, make us the ‘debtor’, – no debtor can win; no creditor can lose Verdict CLC – accused is either “guilty” or “innocent” JC – attorneys have the defendant plea bargain since, if defendant is indeed innocent the attorney makes nothing on the deal, other than his client fees; hence, the attorney works both sides of the court. Crime CLC – infringement upon life, liberty, property, or rights of a living soul (a civil suit) 49 JC – all crime is commercial – a breach of contract Attorney CLC – none is needed; the accused ‘presents’ himself or hires a lawyer to work for him JC 1. tricks living soul to believe he is the ‘Defendant’, 2. is sworn to collect revenue for the Crown, 3. represents both sides of the court – the corporate strawman defendant and the Crown so he cant lose 4. makes sure his client loses so he can get a cut of the fine (not so in civil suits) 5. works solely for the court unless he contracts to work for the living soul in which case he becomes a ‘lawyer’ Jury CLC – ‘trial by jury’; the jury judges both the facts of the case AND the law itself JC – ‘jury trial’ which means that the jury does what the ‘judge’ directs – this might include ignoring either the facts of the case and/or the law in question Charges CLC – accused is permitted to face his accuser (the injured party) JC – defendant is charged by prosecutor who represents the Plaintiff – always a corporation, never a living soul “Do you understand?” CLC – judge asks this in order to know if accused is clear about the complaint JC – judge asks this in order to get defendant to contract Sentencing CLC – jury gives verdict; judge sentences with jury’s approval; a living soul pays a fine or serves time JC – Strawman/Defendant, not living soul, is sentenced. Unfortunately, the living soul thinks he is the Defendant. Everyone who is in jail is there because of something he said, or failed to say, prior to, or during, an administrative tribunal, not for some ‘wrong’ deed. * In an equity court – which is all there is since there are no more courts ‘of law’ – when we are asked, “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God?”, we must respond “No” – not to be contemptuous but rather because the ‘truth’ can not be told. Courts of equity can neither see nor hear ‘truth’. They are courts of fiction and cannot have any truth within. If indeed one tells the ‘whole truth’ the cat will be let out of the bag and he will thereby be in contempt and go directly to jail. We must tell ‘our’ truth, which is that we accepted and returned their offer, (more later), yet telling ‘the’ truth will land us in jail very quickly. Remember that Martha Stewart got herself into trouble not by having anything to do with ‘insider trading’ but by lying. Since there is no law against ‘lying’, the only way she could be convicted was for her to have made it a crime to lie. The only way that she could have made ‘lying’ a crime is by contracting and agreeing not to lie. The only way she could contract and agree to that was to ‘swear to tell the truth’ – it was her ‘swearing in’ that created the contract which she later breached by lying – which convicted her. Had she never agreed /contracted to ‘tell the truth’, she never would have been convicted. Her conviction had nothing to do with ‘insider trading’ OR ‘lying’; it had everything to do with contracting. A game warden caught a man with furs in the trunk of his car. Every time the warden, and ultimately the judge, asked about the furs, the man responded with, “What furs?” Even when the furs were pointed out to him he asked, “What furs?” The had to let him go because he never contracted. 50 Contracts I am not making this up; the courts literally trick us into contracting with them in order for us to slit our own throats by breaching the terms and conditions of the contract. This is WHY we are asked if we will ‘swear’. We have an option; we are not required to tell the truth unless we swear we will – i.e.: enter into a contract with someone and agree to tell the truth. The sole purpose of that question is to get us to contract. They have NO jurisdiction until we contract. As long as we do not contract with them – and no law can compel anyone to contract – we can remain free. We have the right to contract and .... the right not to contract. All they do is go along with us. They have no commercial energy of their own – they rely on us to give it to them. All law is commerce; all commerce is contract; no contract – no case. The following “Toothpick Story” illustrates this concept. A fellow went to court and had managed not to contract right to the end when he said, “It seems my public business is finished here so I am now leaving”, and headed to the door. The judge yelled, “And take that toothpick out of your mouth!” and the man did. As soon as he did, the judge yelled to the Bailiff, “Arrest that man.” Why? Because by removing the toothpick from his mouth the man had contracted with the court. All Law is Contract; Every Interchange Between People is Contract; All Commerce is Contract; Contract Makes the Law Remember, anything that requires your signature, or a swearing thereto in order to give it application, is not law, but a contract. – Ron Branson (J.A.I.L. – Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) At common law, these eight elements are essential to the creation of a contract: offer, acceptance, intention, sufficient and equal consideration, mental and lawful capacity to contract, legality of purpose, genuine consent (knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily), certainty of terms and conditions. You are usually tricked into contracting. I heard of a woman who was charged with writing ‘bad cheques’ and prior to sentencing was asked by the judge if she had anything to say. This is called, ‘allocution’ and is the time for the ‘defendant’ to say what’s so. Unfortunately, most defendants fail to take advantage of this opportunity to set the record straight. She, however, told the judge, “With all due respect, I do not accept your sentence.” The judge then said, “I sentence you to 25 years.” Again she said, “I do not accept your sentence.” He called both attorneys, who were now visibly irate, to come forward. The judge then asked, “Well, Ms. ... , would you think it kind of the court to sentence you to only 10 years?” Again she said she would not accept his sentence. The judges final words, to the dismay of the attorneys, were, “I hereby dismiss this case and all charges are dropped.” He couldn’t do anything without her agreement. This is the power of contracts. By the way, it is impossible to write a ‘bad cheque’; there is no such thing. If it has a date, a payee, a $$$ amount, and an autograph it is a lawful commercial instrument because the funds are created by those four requirements. If it is kept by the corporate entity to which one has specified ‘credit/pay to the order of’, then it is clearly being used as such. Don’t let anyone tell you that you wrote a ‘bad cheque’. Sure, there might not have been debt funds in the account to cover it yet that doesn’t mean that the private side hasn’t been accessed. In fact, you can be certain that it has been if it weren’t returned to you and if it has been returned then keep in mind that a debt/ legal tender (payment) offered in honour (in good faith) and refused, is a debt discharged. There is no commercial crime here except on the part of the entity trying to charge you with ‘writing a bad cheque.’ Remember: A Promissory Note is a Promissory Note is a Promissory Note....... more later when I recount my latest adventures with RBC (Royal Bank of Canada) and CRA (which continues to change its name – so just remember it as the Canadian version of IRS). An offer of contract becomes binding after 72 hours (3 days); after seven (7) days there is a default and after ten (10) days there is a summary judgement. So handle your offers immediately. The basis of 99% of all legal actions is derived from a ‘person’ (strawman) being sued, or accused of having entered into and breached a commercial contract, or being presumed to have entered into and breached a commercial contract. If the contract does not meet the four legal requirements, it is void. In order to live free we must remain eternally vigilant of these invisible contracts and avoid the presumption of their existence. The most significant presumptions are: 1. that you are a resident; 51 2. that you depend upon the government for benefits; 3. that you are not responsible for your behaviour; and 4. that you need protection – an attorney, a financial advisor, a doctor, a fiat currency, etc. (Protect me from the protectors.) All the above are false presumptions the existence of which is perpetuated upon the belief that all land and people are collateral for a debt which supports a fraudulent monetary system. All are based upon the presumption that certificates of ‘birth’/ ‘title’, etc., in commercial law, waive our right to take responsibility for our own affairs and own our bodies, plus life, liberty, and the property we accumulate through trading our labour with others or creating from raw materials, if we don’t object to or arrange our affairs otherwise. The PTB have established a long history (hundreds of years) of lending what is considered ‘money’ or ‘credit’ and then calling in debts, and creating wars around the world over these debts.
Posted on: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 09:54:55 +0000